Repugs believe

[Baxter]

Things You Have To Believe To Be A Republican During the Holiday Season
Today:

* "Happy Holidays" is a vile, offensive slur.

* A Turkish saint and a Jewish carpenter from Palestine were both white.

* "A Christmas Carol" is a horror story, the tale of a practical, thrifty
Job Creator who was turned into a communist after being stalked and
brainwashed by some ghosts.

And from the Jimmy Kimmel show:
* The true hero of "It's a Wonderful Life" is Mister Potter, the visionary
Job Creator, and the villain is that communist George Bailey.

[hal lillywhite]

So name a few Republicans who believe that. You can't do it, can you. You are
lying again.

[BT]

Hal said in response to Baxter:

> So name a few Republicans who believe that. You can't do it, can you.
> You are lying again.

Hal, what else would we expect from someone who claimed that Tri-Met scheduled a bus every 30 seconds along a particular route.

He will, of course, do his Ray Bolger imitation again and do a tap dance by saying that his comment was taken out of context, but his very words (preserved by me for the time capsule) clearly show him saying that ythis was the scheduling needed because of the demand.

BT

[Baxter]

hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in
news:35168001-214c-4d9d...@googlegroups.com:

LOL - clearly this touched a nerve. Conservatoons are complete
snowflakes.

[BT]

Baxter said:

> LOL - clearly this touched a nerve.

Nothing on your list was capable of hitting a nerve because it was
so inaccurate.

BT

[hal lillywhite]

So true. LeRoy is just trying to cover up another of his lies.

[Bill Shatzer]

It's called S-A-T-I-R-E Harold.

Lighten up a bit.

peace and justice,

[hal lillywhite]

Satire: the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and
criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of
contemporary politics and other topical issues.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1&q=satire+definition

Which means that the satire must be based on actual stupidity or vices. LeRoy's
post is not so based so is not good satire.

[Baxter]

hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in

news:b7ca6242-0cc7-4fd0...@googlegroups.com:

Certainly the first two items are. And the last two items are certainly
in line with YOUR ideology and the crap you spout here.

That you can't see it testifies to the fanatical religious aspect of your
political ideology. It's not politics, its your religion and world view.
And it's based on dogma and belief - not facts.

[Fred]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 16:25:46 -0800, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu>
wrote:

>
>It's called S-A-T-I-R-E Harold.
>
>Lighten up a bit.

Hal follows a prophet that got their holy book from a talking lizard.

[hal lillywhite]

And you still post not a single fact to back up your lies. Or maybe you are dumb
enough to believe that rot.

[Baxter]

hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in

news:cad4c205-98fc-43c2...@googlegroups.com:

Relax, hal, we're laughing AT you - not with you.

[hal lillywhite]

Are you deliberately lying, or just so dumb that you get your information from
a known forgery, from a convicted forger and murderer?

[Bill Shatzer]

Well, rather clearly item no. 1 on this list is but a slight
exaggeration for effect of the reaction of many right wing republicans
to the supposed "war on Christmas" of years past. They seem to work
themselves into righteous apoplexy whenever anyone suggests that a
nonsectarian holiday greeting might be more appropriate and properly
respectful of the wide religious diversity in this nation

Peace and justice

[Bill Shatzer]

Well it's no more improbable than the "official" version of events.


peace and justice,

[Fred]

Lighten up, Hal. BTW, what is the best way to clean Mormon underwear?

[hal lillywhite]

On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 3:27:23 PM UTC-8, Fred wrote:

> >Are you deliberately lying, or just so dumb that you get your information from
> >a known forgery, from a convicted forger and murderer?
>
> Lighten up, Hal. BTW, what is the best way to clean Mormon underwear?

A good shrink could probably help you with that fixation on underwear.

[hal lillywhite]

On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 3:20:43 PM UTC-8, Bill Shatzer wrote:

> >>>> * "Happy Holidays" is a vile, offensive slur.
> >>>>
> >>>> * A Turkish saint and a Jewish carpenter from Palestine were both white.
> >>>>
> >>>> * "A Christmas Carol" is a horror story, the tale of a practical, thrifty
> >>>> Job Creator who was turned into a communist after being stalked and
> >>>> brainwashed by some ghosts.
> >>>>
> >>>> And from the Jimmy Kimmel show:
> >>>> * The true hero of "It's a Wonderful Life" is Mister Potter, the visionary
> >>>> Job Creator, and the villain is that communist George Bailey.
> >>
> >>> So name a few Republicans who believe that. You can't do it, can you. You are
> >>> lying again.
>
> >> It's called S-A-T-I-R-E Harold.
>
> > Satire: the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and
> > criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of
> > contemporary politics and other topical issues.
> > https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1&q=satire+definition
>
> > Which means that the satire must be based on actual stupidity or vices. LeRoy's
> > post is not so based so is not good satire.
>
> Well, rather clearly item no. 1 on this list is but a slight
> exaggeration for effect of the reaction of many right wing republicans
> to the supposed "war on Christmas" of years past.

I'll repeat what LeRoy couldn't do: Name a few Republicans who think that
Happy Hollidays is a vile slur.

> They seem to work
> themselves into righteous apoplexy whenever anyone suggests that a
> nonsectarian holiday greeting might be more appropriate and properly
> respectful of the wide religious diversity in this nation

Or they get upset when people try to stop us from saying "Merry Christmas."

[Baxter]

hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in

news:2abcda25-e57f-438b...@googlegroups.com:

hal's underwear shrank.

[hal lillywhite]

On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 3:27:20 PM UTC-8, Bill Shatzer wrote:

> >> Hal follows a prophet that got their holy book from a talking lizard.
>
> > Are you deliberately lying, or just so dumb that you get your information from
> > a known forgery, from a convicted forger and murderer?
>
> Well it's no more improbable than the "official" version of events.

Have you investigated the official version with an open mind?

[Baxter]

hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in

news:8644f334-3d74-46f4...@googlegroups.com:

Cult leaders are always Con Artists.

[a425couple]

Sure. And you accuse others of lying.

[BT]

a425couple wrote:

> Sure. And you accuse others of lying

Let's be clear about one thing: Billy says a lot of things that are not accurate. But he's no Baxter.

BT

[Baxter]

a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:pvgco...@news3.newsguy.com:

You should go build tRump's wall for him.

https://i.imgur.com/LDcw4TD.png

[Bill Shatzer]

I've investigated it enough to satisfy myself that it was not worth
expending further time on.

But don't feel I'm picking on you - I find all religions equally
vacuous. Although some are tarted up a bit more than others but in the
end they all come down to smoke and mirrors and fairy tales.

But a stray from my long held belief one is best served by not
discussing religion with friends or even with foes. So I decline to
continue this particular thread.

peace and justice

[hal lillywhite]

On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 7:37:45 PM UTC-8, hal lillywhite wrote:

> > They seem to work
> > themselves into righteous apoplexy whenever anyone suggests that a
> > nonsectarian holiday greeting might be more appropriate and properly
> > respectful of the wide religious diversity in this nation
>
> Or they get upset when people try to stop us from saying "Merry Christmas."

Heard on the news (KSL) this morning about a rest home or some such, in
Washington IIRC, that banned any religious content in Christmas decorations
on resident doors, or even in rooms. They claimed that some federal regulation
required that but the news claimed that there is no such regulation.

[BT]

Baxter said:

> You should go build tRump's wall for him.

Is that the one already authorized over a decade ago, padded with Yea votes by both Senators Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama?

BT

[Al Czervik]

$11M in 4 days:
https://www.gofundme.com/thetrumpwall

That's a $1B/year.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Baxter]

BT <robert.m...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:e234a51c-5e8f-4f10...@googlegroups.com:

Still looking for those Alaska Fish Guts, BT?

[Baxter]

Al Czervik <Caddys...@gmail.com> wrote in news:pvi00o$iib$1@dont-
email.me:

Your taxes at work! P. T. Barnum would be proud!

[Baxter]

Baxter <bax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote in news:pvj1r3$enc$2
@gioia.aioe.org:

BTW - sources say that $5B only builds 1/3 of the wall. Also, in some
places the wall will be up to 2 miles north of the actual border - and the
US government will sieze the private lands between the wall and the actual
border by Eminent Domain.

[BT]

BT:

> > Is that the one already authorized over a decade ago, padded with Yea
> > votes by both Senators Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama?

Baxter replied:

> Still looking for those Alaska Fish Guts, BT?

From Politifact:
The Secure Fence Act of 2006

The Secure Fence Act of 2006, which was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President George W. Bush, authorized about 700 miles of fencing along certain stretches of land between the border of the United States and Mexico.

The act also authorized the use of more vehicle barriers, checkpoints and lighting to curb illegal immigration, and the use of advanced technology such as satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles.

At the time the act was being considered, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer were all members of the Senate. (Schumer of New York is now the Senate minority leader.)

Obama, Clinton, Schumer and 23 other Democratic senators voted in favor of the act when it passed in the Senate by a vote of 80 to 19.

---------------

Wall, fence, same thing. So much for the imaginary line.

BT

[Baxter]

BT <robert.m...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6d376821-b63f-494c...@googlegroups.com:

So what? Just because we've built something in the past, doesn't mean we
need more of it.

But by all means, BT, send ALL your money to that scammer's gofundme page
to "build" your wall. I'm perfectly happy to see you conservatoons
bankrupt yourselves paying for a wall/fence that won't work all the while
you rail against "big government" taxes.

[BT]

BT said:


> > Obama, Clinton, Schumer and 23 other Democratic senators voted in
> > favor of the act when it passed in the Senate by a vote of 80 to 19.
> >
> > ---------------
> >
> > Wall, fence, same thing. So much for the imaginary line.

Baxter ho-hummed:

> So what? Just because we've built something in the past, doesn't mean we
> need more of it.

So you're admitting that Obama, Hillary, and Schumer voted like real hate-filled people?


I remember when Obo gave a speech to his clapping-deal admirers, and here's a brief comment from Politifact six days later:

"In his speech in El Paso on immigration reform on May 10, 2011, President Obama declared that the fence along the border with Mexico is 'now basically complete.' "

What a hoot. I remember that just before he said that, he mentioned that Repubs want a wall and the clapping seals booed. Then he said it was "basically complete", and the clapping seals got kind of quiet, like they didn't know what to do after hearing their hee-ro, Captain Twinkle-Toes, say that something they did not want at all was "basically complete". No matter - when he immediately followed that by saying that Repubs still wouldn't be satisified and that they might want a moat with alligators in it, they were clapping seals again. In other words, they really didn't know what the real story was and applauded a bogus criticism of Repubs while refusing to boo and hiss their hero for (so he said) already doing what the Repubs wanted.



Baxter continued:

> But by all means, BT, send ALL your money to that scammer's gofundme page
> to "build" your wall.

There you go speculating again, which is easy to do when you see things only in black and white.

I'm not exactly sold on the idea of a wall but I do want real security (as high ranking Democrats were supporting less than a decade a ago). The real issue is the lack of honesty among Democrats regarding what they really support. Right now it seems clear that the Democratic Party stands for a very porous border and nearly unlimited immigration while avoiding saying just that to general audiences.

I'm not for that at all. It's a real cynical thing they are doing - they are essentially going all out for bringing in millions of people who they will make sure will vote 80 percent for Democratic Party candidates. This country's politicians never used to do anything like. There are examples of immigrant groups being taken advantage of (for votes) by local political machines, but it was never like this.


Face it, if polls showed that 60 percent of immigrants from points south voted Republican, the Democrats would be building the wall.



Baxter tried again:

> I'm perfectly happy to see you conservatoons bankrupt yourselves paying > for a wall/fence that won't work all the while you rail against "big
> government" taxes.

Paying for the proposed wall, or even a secure border system that would include partial fencing, cameras, etc, would hardly bankrupt the country - that problem is being caused by the gigantic welfare state that is on auto-pilot.

As for big government, there are probably about 18 members of the GOP in Congress who are against big government and vote accordingly. There are none in the Dem Party so far as I can tell. Clearly, the GOP is not the opposite of the Democratic Party. Despite all of the trashing of the GOP as a dastardly party, it's time for people of your ilk to acknowledge that for some years now supports and maintains a much larger welfare state than what we had during the first two decades of the Great Society.


BT

[Baxter]

BT <robert.m...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:457b591b-1f07-4f55...@googlegroups.com:

> BT said:
>
>
>> > Obama, Clinton, Schumer and 23 other Democratic senators voted in
>> > favor of the act when it passed in the Senate by a vote of 80 to
>> > 19.
>> >
>> > ---------------
>> >
>> > Wall, fence, same thing. So much for the imaginary line.
>
>
> Baxter ho-hummed:
>
>> So what? Just because we've built something in the past, doesn't
>> mean we
>
>> need more of it.
>
>
> So you're admitting that Obama, Hillary, and Schumer voted like real
> hate-filled people?

I knew you were trying to set up a False Equivalency. You've not shown
that the "wall" they voted for was anything like tRump's wall.

But I do note that you admit that tRump's wall is all about hate and has
little or nothing to do with actual security.

> Baxter continued:
>
>> But by all means, BT, send ALL your money to that scammer's gofundme
>> page
>
>> to "build" your wall.
>
>

<utter bullshit snipped>

>
>
>
> Baxter tried again:
>
>> I'm perfectly happy to see you conservatoons bankrupt yourselves
>> paying
> > for a wall/fence that won't work all the while you rail against
> > "big
>> government" taxes.
>
>
> Paying for the proposed wall, or even a secure border system that
> would include partial fencing, cameras, etc, would hardly bankrupt the
> country

Yeah, it will. Not only does it have to be built, it has to be
maintained and every inch patrolled. The border with Mexico is about 2000
miles, and it's hardly the only border that you would need your wall on.

>- that problem is being caused by the gigantic welfare state
> that is on auto-pilot.

No such problem - those European countries are doing a lot better than
us.

[BT]

BT said:

>> So you're admitting that Obama, Hillary, and Schumer voted like real
>> hate-filled people?

Baxter said:

> I knew you were trying to set up a False Equivalency. You've not
> shown that the "wall" they voted for was anything like tRump's wall.

Fence or wall, it's all about border control, with the quality of the security relying on other factors such as patrolling, cameras, and other surveillance systems. Even a fence of sorts will work such as what Israel has in some areas - a fence that has drastically reduced the number of homicide bombers. So the Senators mentioned earlier voted for the security and reduction of a porous border and it doesn't mater if the barrier is one you can see through or can't. There's no higher ground for those people, i.e. Sen Obama couldn't say, "A fence no one can get through, sure, but a wall - no way".

> But I do note that you admit that tRump's wall is all about hate and
> has little or nothing to do with actual security.

No such thing was uttered or implied. It is you and your friends who need to explain why you're silent, even in approval of, things done by people like Obama, Clinton, etc., but suddenly cry foul when a Repub does it even to the point of whipping out the tired old labels. No one apparently said anything when during the Obama years we had tear gassing of people trying to rush the boirder, separation of families who made it across illegally, putting children in cages prior to being sent to other holding facilities, deporting people, droning people in the Mid-east, fighting a small war in Libya without even talking to congressional leaders (Bush got votes for his stuff), and so on.

BT said:


>> Paying for the proposed wall, or even a secure border system that
>> would include partial fencing, cameras, etc, would hardly bankrupt the
>> country

Baxter said:


> Yeah, it will. Not only does it have to be built, it has to be
> maintained and every inch patrolled. The border with Mexico is
> about 2000 miles

BT said:


Now why would "every inch" need to be patrolled with a wall, but not without a wall? A wall allows for better use of few agents, unless of course the number of agents increases or even stays the same due to a more serious effort at having a secure border. That's where the high tech comes in. Israel has a more dangerously serious problem with border crossers due to the motives of many would-be border crossers, and their wall or fence doesn't need to have security forces along its full length.


Baxter:

> and it's hardly the only border that you would
> need your wall on.

What else is there except Canada? We don't have much of a problem there. Besides, the reason entry from the south is singled out is because all others, or most others, who enter the USA already do so through controlled points of entry such as airports and sea ports. People don't fly in and get out to the street without being noticed, checked out, and so on. We still have and want points of entry on a land based border but need to channel it through entry points the way other methods or arrival are steered to airports and piers.

BT said:

>> that problem is being caused by the gigantic welfare state
>> that is on auto-pilot.

Baxter:

> No such problem - those European countries are doing a lot better than
> us.

Better than "we" you mean.

Anyway, you're incorrect. What happened to Greece? What about that rioting in France? Why do a lot of those countries have chronically high unemployment? Why do they NEED to import so many people who hate them just so there are people to tax to pay for the giant welfare state? You guys talk about "sustainability" all the time, but you support the most unsustainable economic systems and look the other way. It's a Fantasy Land, such as the kind being advocated (more so) by that Alexandria O-Cortez, and extremely pea-brained moron ("When I'm inaugurated into January...").


BT

BT

[Baxter]

BT <robert.m...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:a9e1c434-27f2-4325...@googlegroups.com:

>
>
> No such thing was uttered or implied. It is you and your friends who
> need to explain why you're silent, even in approval of, things done by
> people like Obama, Clinton, etc., but suddenly cry foul when a Repub
> does it even to the point of whipping out the tired old labels.

Non-partisan experts have said tRump's "wall" would be ineffective and a
complete waste. Even some Repugs are against his wall. And his wall is
not about security, it's about keeping brown people out.

[BT]

Baxter puffed:

> Non-partisan experts have said tRump's "wall" would be ineffective and a
> complete waste.

BT:

It may very well be.


Baxter:

> Even some Repugs are against his wall.

BT:

So much for "they are always in lock step".



Baxter:

> And his wall is not about security, it's about keeping brown people out.

BT:

Nope. People are still free to come to ports of entry where we expect people to enter so we can check them out like we do all people arriving at airports instead of letting people arrive in Piper Cubs landing in any field they see.

As for the "brown people" remark, you need to get a new line. After all, loads of American "brown people" are against illegal immigration/ Even Cesar Chavez back in the day. Gee, why did Portland's regressive community name a street after someone who wanted to keep out "brown people" ?

What do you think of elitists who want those "brown people" to come in and work as maids, drivers, etc? Do you admire them the way you admire the slave-holding class in the 1780s because they wanted to count blacks as whole people?
Who knew?

BT

BT

[Baxter]

BT <robert.m...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:fac4c8b6-6913-436b...@googlegroups.com:

> Baxter puffed:

>
>
> Baxter:
>
>> And his wall is not about security, it's about keeping brown people
>> out.
>
>
> BT:
>
> Nope. People are still free to come to ports of entry where we expect
> people to enter so we can check them out like we do all people
> arriving at airports instead of letting people arrive in Piper Cubs
> landing in any field they see.
>

The LAW reads that one must already on US soil in order to apply for Asylum
- and there is NO requirements as to how they entered the US. The LAW says
it does not matter how they got here.

[BT]

Baxter tried again:

> The LAW reads that one must already on US soil in order to apply for Asylum

> - and there is [are] NO requirements as to how they entered the US.


Duh! You still ignore the fact that asylum does not mean you can use any reason for applying for it, such as "My husband slaps me around", "It's too hot and humid in my country", "I can't find a meaningful job", "My kids need a better school", and so on.

You want every single person showing up at the border to be let in (and you have no problem with them crossing at any random spot in the middle of the nigh or in a hiding spot in a truck) and put on a path to citizenship -- but that makes asylum a meaningless term.

So again, the issue is plain, everyday immigration and we have a process so that people can apply while still in their home countries. We've been letting in millions of people this way so stop trying to pretend otherwise.

> The LAW says it does not matter how they got here.

All countries prefer to have controlled entry points. And prefer to have people go through them and not sneak in elsewhere. People with legitimate claims of asylum should have no problem. The so-called caravan has few, if any, legitimate asylum seekers.

BT

BT

[Baxter]

BT <robert.m...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ef844eef-5429-4450...@googlegroups.com:

> Baxter tried again:
>
>> The LAW reads that one must already on US soil in order to apply for
>> Asyl
> um
>> - and there is [are] NO requirements as to how they entered the US.
>
>
> Duh! You still ignore the fact that asylum does not mean you can use
> any reason for applying for it, such as "My husband slaps me around",
> "It's too hot and humid in my country", "I can't find a meaningful
> job", "My kids need a better school", and so on.
>

I ignored it because it is not relavant to whether and how you apply for
Asylum. The wall has nothing to do with the granting of asylum, and
everything to do with access to applying for asylum.

Rest of your Gish Gallop snipped unread.

[BT]

Baxter blurted:

> I ignored it because it is not relavant to whether and how you apply for
> Asylum.

BT:

You ignored it because you have no real response to inconvenient facts.


Baxter:

> The wall has nothing to do with the granting of asylum

BT:

That's right - it doesn't - so you are using this as a strawman argument.


Baxter:

> and everything to do with access to applying for asylum.

It has nothing at all to do with access to applying for asylum, either by decreasing or increasing access. We have POINTS OF ENTRY. They are there for good reason. Anyone applying for asylum, whether using legitimate reasons or absurd reasons, can approach a point of entry. They must not, however, rush them with a crowd, or rush across 200 miles away in the middle of the desert in the middle of the night. I go into Canada through points of entry - I don't sneak into Canada through the woods many miles from a point of entry.

Baxter:

> Rest of your Gish Gallop snipped unread.

BT:

Because you are dishonest about what you want our immigration policy to be.


All the Best,

BT

[Baxter]

BT <robert.m...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:308fde43-afe6-4dfa...@googlegroups.com:

>
> It has nothing at all to do with access to applying for asylum, either
> by decreasing or increasing access. We have POINTS OF ENTRY. They
> are there for good reason. Anyone applying for asylum, whether using
> legitimate reasons or absurd reasons, can approach a point of entry.
> They must not, however, rush them with a crowd, or rush across 200
> miles away in the middle of the desert in the middle of the night. I
> go into Canada through points of entry - I don't sneak into Canada
> through the woods many miles from a point of entry.
>

What does the law say?
-----------
Here I quote from the ruling :

Congress has clearly commanded in the INA that any alien who arrives in
the United States, irrespective of that alien’s status, may apply for
asylum – “whether or not at a designated port of arrival.” 8 U.S.C.§ 1158
(a)(1).

https://is.gd/LRO4I8

----------

Further - an immigrant has up to 1 year after arriving in the US to apply
for asylum.

You are supporting a racist policy aimed at depriving asylum seekers from
their legal rights.

[BT]

Baxter yawned:

> What does the law say?
> -----------
> Here I quote from the ruling :

BT:

You're still missing the point. Some people can't help but arrive at a place that is not designated as a point of entry, such as anywhere along the south Florida coast. All that is being done with a wall/fense etc is to have points of entry that are taken seriously.

What's interesting here is the route taken by the so-called carvan. It was heading straight for the US border along the south Texas area. It was getting very close. Then the caravan veered to the left and went aaaallllll the way over to Tijuana at the Pacific Coast. Gosh, they were really desperate to get here like real asylum seekers in danger.


Baxter:

> Congress has clearly commanded in the INA that any alien who arrives in
> the United States, irrespective of that alien’s status, may apply for
> asylum – “whether or not at a designated port of arrival.” 8 U.S.C.§ 1158
> (a)(1).

BT:

Points of entry are not being eliminated.


Baxter:

> Further - an immigrant has up to 1 year after arriving in the US to apply
> for asylum.

BT:

Again, you are avoiding the fact that asylum is not always granted, and you want all arrivals to be accepted. So your concern for asylum-seeking is as bogus as Hillary's dislike of the one percent.


Baxter:

> You are supporting a racist policy aimed at depriving asylum seekers from
> their legal rights.

BT:

Again, everyone is the world is NOT born with a US Constitutional right to come here anytime they want to. If you believe that to be so, then there is grounds for the United States to take military action against any and all countries that prevent people from coming here.

Do you really believe in doing that?

Of course you don't.

So much for that "right".

Besides, my favorite example of the Left and people seeking to come to the United States to get away from a bad place is Elian Gonzalez who was violently sent back to a government that promptly made sure he became a democracy hater.

So screw you, Baxter.

BT

[Baxter]

BT <robert.m...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:b4014d4f-9e58-40d2...@googlegroups.com:

> Baxter yawned:
>
>> What does the law say?
>> -----------
>> Here I quote from the ruling :
>
>
> BT:
>
> You're still missing the point.

No, I'm not missing any point.

> Some people can't help but arrive at
> a place that is not designated as a point of entry, such as anywhere
> along the south Florida coast.

Then you agree - immigrants are NOT required to arrive only at solely at
official Points of Entry and can enter ANYWHERE in the US and be elgible to
apply for Asylum.

[BT]

BT said:

> > Some people can't help but arrive at
> > a place that is not designated as a point of entry, such as anywhere
> > along the south Florida coast.

Baxter said:


> Then you agree - immigrants are NOT required to arrive only at solely at
> official Points of Entry and can enter ANYWHERE in the US and be elgible to
> apply for Asylum.

BT:

A point that you miss is that any nation has a right to control its own borders. You also continue to conceal your belief which is that applying for asylum is not the same thing as immigration. After all, zillions of Europeans came here in the 1800s into the 1900s, and nearly all of them they had zero reasons to claim that their lives were in any kind of danger back home.

What we are dealing with here is an abuse of the concept of claiming asylum.

Just be honest about it. These same people could go to a US embassy or consulate and fill out papers to come here even if it's just to get out of a shithole.

BT

[Baxter]

BT <robert.m...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:2bf8763d-a62e-4f9e...@googlegroups.com:

> BT said:
>
>> > Some people can't help but arrive at
>> > a place that is not designated as a point of entry, such as
>> > anywhere along the south Florida coast.
>
>
> Baxter said:
>
>
>> Then you agree - immigrants are NOT required to arrive only at solely
>> at
>
>> official Points of Entry and can enter ANYWHERE in the US and be
>> elgible
> to
>> apply for Asylum.
>
>
> BT:
>
> A point that you miss is that any nation has a right to control its
> own borders.

Borders are artifical beaurocratic lines resulting from treaties between
warring kingdoms. For most of human history there have been no hard
national boundries - just vague landmarks and people from neighboring
kingdoms often crossed those borders - even in groups, establishing whole
villages. Few if any hard borders existed before th 1900's.

And US law HAS established how we treat the our borders and tRump
policies and orders have contravened those laws.

The point you keep missing/ignoring is existant US Law. You keep pushing
your racist, exclusionary fantasy.

[Harold Burton]

In article <pvgco...@news3.newsguy.com>,

a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/18/2018 4:25 PM, Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > hal lillywhite wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 8:22:50 AM UTC-8, Baxter wrote:
> >>> Things You Have To Believe To Be A Republican During the Holiday Season
> >>> Today:
> >>>
> >>> * "Happy Holidays" is a vile, offensive slur.
> >>>
> >>> * A Turkish saint and a Jewish carpenter from Palestine were both white.
> >>>
> >>> * "A Christmas Carol" is a horror story, the tale of a practical,
> >>> thrifty
> >>> Job Creator who was turned into a communist after being stalked and
> >>> brainwashed by some ghosts.
> >>>
> >>> And from the Jimmy Kimmel show:
> >>> * The true hero of "It's a Wonderful Life" is Mister Potter, the
> >>> visionary
> >>> Job Creator, and the villain is that communist George Bailey.
> >
> >> So name a few Republicans who believe that. You can't do it, can you.
> >> You are
> >> lying again.
> >
> > It's called S-A-T-I-R-E Harold.
> >
> > Lighten up a bit.
> >
> > peace and justice,
>
> Sure. And you accuse others of lying.

It's a variation of "can't you take a joke", the standard response
bullies make when they're called on their lies.

[Harold Burton]

In article <pvj1r3$enc$2...@gioia.aioe.org>,

So would the previous resident with his bogus "stimulus" package.